Question to those that dislike the UN.

BWX

They arte extremists ...yes...:-)



You said un " regulated "free" capitalism " is what is threatening peace and freedom- when that is what enables peace and freedom. ..........no............. sorry that is wrong

Falstaff

Conservatives, extremists, socialists, fascists, tyrants, pacifists, appeasers, libertarians, republicans, democrats, independents, etc etc..."all gotta get paid "..

The color of politics, the type of politics or the political direction of most countries is in part driven by money, you can embrace an ideal, but it doesn't get off the ground without money,

Money for peace, money for wars, money for food, money for leverage, money for clout, money and weapons for the most part.

If anyone wants to point a bloody finger at any one institution or entity, point it at those that loan or collect money on debts...

You can start with the world bank if you want, International fund raising, regardless of who is in power in any country that has to borrow money or food to prop up their economies or feed their military or people. The money lenders have the most power in my opinion...no matter how many faces you want to put on it...

So anyone can put a sinister spin on any politics or type of politics or political effort in any country, the one single common denominator is "money"...the root of all evil...or if your from southern california....the lack of money, ha ha...

So without money, the great political and military machines that rumble along, gotta get paid as well...and fed and clothed....regardless of what uniforms they wear...

bluelight

I dont have any problems whatsoever with enterprise.It is the major force of development.


But....unlike the right...i want enterprise to be controlled and....taxed.


Simple.

Why i want this?

Well i am a socialist.I believe in socialistic economic principles.I believe that a totally unregulated capitalism will aithout exception become rotten.

There is a middle way between full capitalism..and socialism.

It works...it has been working here for 60 years...although the capitalists do what they can to crush it...some cant ever have enough....


If anyone use Usa as an example on capitalism and claim that :Look at Usa!!! It works!!!

My answer to that will be so...you do not have poverty in USA?

You do not have classes?


Well...if you do (and you do) then it doesnt work.

Then capitalism as a system does not.....look to the needs of.....all....


Bluelight

The_Neon_Cowboy

You seem to not rember the FACT that UN was started and founded primarly by the US. after the leage of nation falied to prefent WW2 and colasped... the US dosent want it to fail but it's flawed certian countrys selflishy could couse the body to fail to act. I think the Veto powers should be changed... then again i think thier votes weight should be mesured by the population of thier country. So as it sands no the manority may speak for the magority and thats messed up. the system need to look a little bit more like the us congress so to speak with even repersantation. I this war we seen many country rear thier selfish had worrying not about the matter at had, not the iraqy people, not the terrorism , but thie own selfis interst and agenda's and no those who apposed this was so wholehartedly now want a hand $$$ (self intrest again) in the rebuilding of iraq .... we they sould get to help acording to how much they helped the effort and troops they supplied ..... ops look like france, gemany, seria,sadia areabia, russia, etc... gets $0 and shoud have no role what so ever in the rebuilding of iraq ....... ecept for releaseing them from the debts to a regime thast is no longer in power.... so if they want thier money tell them to go as saddam for it

bluelight

Well i already told you this once before....the UN wasd started by the members that started it at the beginning,Not by the Usa.

It was a follower of an earlier organisation that existed before WW2 that was called league of nations or similar..

No...you did not start UN.


I also think that the rules of veto`s should be changed.

Only problem is that5 Usa ;Russia ,China etc etc will never give up the right to use their veto.

Usa is one of the countrys that has used their veto most of all.

Especially when it has come to mideast resolutions.


You also accuse a couple of countries of acying in their own interests by refusing to act according to your dictate in the UN.


Then i suppose you supported Saddam and refused to react when he was using nervegas against Iran and the Kurds as a non selfishly gesture.How nice of you



Bluelight

Bluelight

The_Neon_Cowboy

And I tell you again learn your history !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.yale.edu/unsy/Oralhist/kr...l_history.html



Where to Begin?

The founding of the United Nations can best be seen as bound up in an evolutionary process of international organization. So, where should we begin our story? The UN is an organization of national governments, therefore, we cannot begin our evolutionary tale until the birth of the nation state marked by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. At the onset of nationhood, bilateral diplomacy was the primary means of communication and conflict resolution between states but in nineteenth century Europe the concept of large-scale, multilateral conferences emerged as a tentative first step toward developing a dialogue on cooperation. Four major conferences took place between 1815 and 1822 in response to the devastation created by the Napoleonic Wars. Over the next one hundred years, leaders of Europe's greatest nations, referred to as the Concert of Europe, assembled some thirty times to discuss urgent political matters of the day. These resplendent gatherings took place in Berlin, Paris, London, and other cities around Europe. The most powerful countries became known as the 'great powers' who formed a kind of executive committee of European affairs. The Concert gradually admitted new members, accepting Greece and Belgium in 1830 and Turkey in 1856. As Inis Claude explains, 'Diplomacy by conference became an established in the life in the nineteenth century meetings of the dozen or so countries constituting the Concert of Europe came to an abrupt end with the outbreak of World War One. In addition to the focus on security issues addressed by the Concert, Europe was also engaging in other international efforts to organize across state territories. River commissions were created to manage navigation on the Danube and Rhine rivers. Increased trade and migration brought the spread of diseases like cholera which motivated a total of six international conferences dealing with health issues between 1851 and 1903. At about the same time, two international 'peace' conferences were held at the Hague, the first in 1899 with twenty-six countries and the second in 1907 at which the number of nations was expanded to forty-four, including most of Latin America. The contribution of the Hague Conferences was not only the introduction of non-European states and the sense of equality given to all those participating in contrast to the great power hegemony of the Concert, but also that international relations might be based on standard norms and the regular convening of members. These conferences did not create a permanent institution but they had laid the ground work for an established multilateral consultation process which eventually led to the formation of the League of Nations following the Great War.


The Creation of the League of Nations:

The First World War brought an end to the Concert of Europe and the system initiated by the Hague conferences. But, following the War, the two concepts reappeared and were merged into the formation of the League of Nations which retained the great power executive committee status of the Concert in combination with the egalitarian universality of the Hague idea. The League's Council became the executive committee, granting permanent status to five of the major powers along with a number of rotating members and the Assembly, reflecting the egalitarian ideal of the Hague concept, granted equal voting rights to all League members. The League not only merged the two earlier frameworks but added another layer by establishing a permanent Secretariat and regular meetings to further institutionalize the cooperation which had begun over a century before.

However, the League experiment encountered a number of serious setbacks before its ultimate demise at the outbreak of World War Two which it had failed to prevent. First, the United States, whose President Woodrow Wilson is credited as father of the League, never joined. Wilson, a Democrat, did not succeed in convincing the Republican led Senate to ratify the treaty which was required for membership. The permanent seat reserved for the U.S. was left unoccupied throughout the League's short life span. The other problem was that two of the other permanent members on the League's Council were Italy and Japan who emerged as aggressor nations, forming an unholy union with Nazi Germany to ignite yet another global conflict. The League's rut. The League's rules of consensus gave everyone a veto which deadlocked the organization, leaving it unable to effectively react when permanent member Japan invaded Manchuria and Italy invaded Ethiopia. While economic sanctions were imposed on Italy, in fact, they were removed when Italy completed its occupation of Ethiopia. Also, the League never condemned war but only asked its members to wait three months before resorting to war. The League had been built on the premise that war was a mistake and that dialogue and negotiation could resolve disputes that might arise among its members. It was not prepared to deal with the purposeful aggression of the Axis powers.

The_Neon_Cowboy

The War Years:

U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his Secretary of State Cordell Hull still believed in the Wilsonian concept of the League even though it had been discredited for failing to deal effectively with the aggressive tactics which eventually led to another worldwide conflict. During the war years, Roosevelt instructed his State Department staff to reconstitute a framework based on the League idea which would not only provide the means for consultation and peaceful settlement but also give the organization enforcement powers, or 'teeth' to prevent aggression. It was assumed that the new institution would have a plenary assembly and an 'executive' council much as the League had done. However, because the new organization was to have enforcement powers a new strategy had to be devised. Under the League, the Council and the Assembly had concurrent powers and neither had enforcement authority. Ruth Russell, in her excellent book on the period describes the thinking of the State Department and Roosevelt at the time:

Given the fundamental decision to clothe the new institution with some kind of enforcement power, it was natural to think of making the smaller organ more of an executive agent for the whole organization and of centering in it the control of the security function.

Roosevelt had expressed enthusiasm for an enforcement mechanism based on the wartime alliance of the four major powers: Britain, China, the Soviet Union, and the U.S. France, which had been occupied by Germany from the onset of the war, was not a part of these preliminary discussions. In the Moscow Declaration of October 1943, Roosevelt and Hull carefully orchestrated an agreement among the four foreign ministers to pledge their countries to continuing wartime cooperation through the establishment of an organization committed to the maintenance of international peace. However, at home, a State Department committee set up to study these proposals did not favor the idea of providing such predominance for the major powers and suggested that there be a larger body which would look more like the League Council in order to better balance the might of the 'Big Four.' These powers would still make up an 'Executive Committee' but any decision emanating from the body would have to have a majority of the whole Council membership, including the votes of those holding non-permanent seats.

It was felt that the consent of the major powers was necessary because they would be providing the military force required to give the organization the 'teeth' it needed. These nations would not be willing to have their militaries conscripted into an enforcement action against their will. They would just withdraw from the organization. On the other hand, unanimity of the whole Council as had been required under the League was to be avoided. However, to ensure the solidity of the enforcement threat, the decisions of the Council would have to be binding on all the members in the organization.

When President Roosevelt addressed the nation on Christmas Eve 1943, during his radio talk he had these words for the American people:

Britain, Russia, China, and the United States and their allies represent more than three-quarters of the total population of the earth. As long as these four Nations with great military power stick together in determina-tion to keep the peace there will be no possibility of an aggressor Nation arising to start another world war.

But those four powers must be united with and cooperate with all the freedom-loving peoples of Europe, and Asia, and Africa, and the Americas. The rights of every Nation, large and small, must be respected and guarded as jealously as are the rights of every individual within our own Republic.

The United States was the emerging pivotal power and was taking the lead on the creation of this new organization. The fact that the U.S. was also a democracy is key to the evolution of the conceptual development underlying the structure and wording of the Charter. As Wilson had learned the hard way, Roosevelt knew that the United States could not become a member of the new institution without Senate approval. He therefore set about early in the process to bring leaders of the Senate into the dialogue through a special committee headed by Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg and Democratic Senator Tom Connelly. Senator Vandenberg was deeply concerned that the new organization would undertake to keep a 'just' peace. In addition, the Senate committee noted a concern expressed by a number of civic groups for the position of smaller states within the organization. Secretary Hull and Roosevelt took very seriously the SenatorsÃ* concerns because in the U.S. democratic system they needed the concurrence of the Senate and the American people. Senate concerns prompted Roosevelt to make this statement on June 15, 1944:

We are not thinking of a superstate with its own police forces and other paraphernalia of coercive power. We are seeking effective agreement and arrangements through which the nations would maintain, according to their capacities, adequate forces to meet the needs of preventing war and of making impossible deliberate preparations for war, and to have such forces available for joint action when necessary.

The_Neon_Cowboy

The Meetings at Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta:

When the preparations for a new international organization were ready for discussion by the major powers, Roosevelt called a meeting together which was held at a large estate in Washington, D.C. called Dumbarton Oaks. The U.S. team that had contributed to the preparations were among others Leo Pasvolsky (an American of White Russian origin), Ralph Bunche, Alger Hiss, and Grayson Kirk. Hiss describes the attitude of the team towards the League experiment:

The League was regarded as definitely our forerunner. There was no hostility toward it. There was a feeling that it had to be improved upon, that it had failed, and that we could learn from its failure. It was not universal enough; it was too Euro-centered, and it didn't seem to us to have the necessary powers that an international organization should have. And also we knew we would in a literal sense succeed the League and take over its properties and its functions. But the UN in no sense was hostile. The League was considered a brave experiment and there was much we could learn from its few successes and its failures.

The team set about preparing for the meetings at Dumbarton Oaks which had to take place in two sessions. The Soviets and the British met with the Americans first, starting the discussions on August 21, 1944. The Soviets left on September 28 and the next day the Chinese arrived for a nine-day meeting with the Anglo-Americans. This procedure was a political necessity at the request of the Soviets who had not entered the war in the Pacific against Japan and did not want to appear to the Japanese that they were in collusion with the Chinese. The meeting with the Chinese was largely a formality and Hiss claims that they were not major participants in the process.

A significant outline of the Charter was produced at Dumbarton Oaks. It was agreed that there would be a Security Council, a General Assembly, a Secretariat, and an International Court of Justice. Alger Hiss who took the notes for the State Department at the meeting explains that the 'Economic and Social Council was only barely sketched' and 'Trusteeship was not taken up at all.' The voting on the Security Council, including the veto were not settled at Dumbarton Oaks and were taken up again at Yalta. In Washington, Gromyko who was the Soviet Ambassador to the U.S. headed the Soviet delegation. Alexander Cadogan represented the British and Edward Stettinius headed the American delegation. The Chinese delegation was led by the Chinese Ambassador to London, V.K. Wellington Koo. This meeting was not at the level of heads of state. That was to take place at Yalta and therefore certain politically sensitive issues like the veto and trusteeship had to wait.

At Dumbarton Oaks there was no agreement on exactly what the membership of the new organization ought to be except that members should be 'peace loving' nations. Under instruction from Moscow, Ambassador Gromyko stated that the Soviet Union wanted a seat for each of the fifteen republics plus a seat for the Soviet Union itself, for a total of sixteen members. Hiss remembers Roosevelt telling the American team to say to Gromyko that if they insist on that 'the whole thing is off.' Roosevelt basically took Gromyko's statement as a bargaining position, but nevertheless, this issue would go through various stages before it was finally settled. Both Stettinius and Cadogan found Gromyko quite 'compatible' to work with and they felt that he understood the American position on the fifteen republics. It was mentioned that in that case, the U.S. could invite all 48 states to join.

Another point of contention between the Soviets and the Western powers which surfaced at Dumbarton Oaks was the issue of what the competence of the organization should be. The British and the Americans both agreed that the organization should address economic and social issues as well as strictly security considerations. The belief was that hostilities in Europe which had contributed to conflict had in part arisen from economic and social problems and that any organization dealing with the prevention of war would have to also address those issues which underlay the fundamental causes. The Soviets, on the contrary, felt strongly that the new structure should only deal with security. Alexei Roschin, adviser to the Soviets, explains that they were 'strongly against' any other competency for the organization. They were committed to the idea of collective enforcement even to the extent that they strongly supported the creation of a UN Military Staff Committee. The Soviets also wanted the veto to apply to all decisions emanating from the Security Council even on procedural matters. Interestingly, Alger Hiss recounts that initially the British and most particularly Churchill were not in favor of the veto and had to be convinced by the Americans.

A number of things were resolved at Yalta which had been left unfinished at the Dumbarton Oaks meeting. In contrast to the Washington meeting, Yalta was at the level of heads of state. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met at Yalta from February 4-11, 1945.

The issue of membership was essentially resolved even though some of the agreements unraveled by the time the delegates reached San Francisco later on. Basically though, the term 'peace loving nations' was defined at Yalta to mean those countries that had declared war on the Axis powers by March 1, 1945. Argentina still had not declared war and had been supporting Nazi Germany to the anger of the Soviets, in particular. The Soviets at Yalta felt that the agreement meant that Argentina would not become an original member and would not be invited to the San Francisco Conference where the Charter would be finalized.

On the issue of the fifteen republics, at Yalta Stalin suggested that the Soviet Union plus three republics should be original members: Lithuania, the Ukraine, and Byelorussia. The U.S. position was absolutely negative. They were constituent parts of the Soviet Union and not sovereign states. But every time the issue came up, the Soviets would say to the British, 'And what about India?' Churchill was adamant that India, which was still under British control, had to be a member however one might think about its sovereign status. That was the stalemate until a diplomatic mistake was made which ironically cleared up the matter. Alger Hiss, who again was the secretary and note-taker at Yalta, describes what happened. The foreign ministers (for Britain: Anthony Eden, for the Soviet Union: Vyacheslav Molotov, and for the U.S.: Edward Stettinius) met in the morning at their dacha and the heads of government met in the afternoon at another dacha:

It was my duty to read the minutes as soon as they were completed, and to my surprise I saw that the minutes said that agreement had been reached, that votes would be given to White Russia [Byelorussia] and the Ukraine. So I rushed up to Eden and said, 'Mr. Eden, it's a mistake, we didn't agree.' And he, quite testily - which wasn't his usual manner - said, 'You don't know what's happened, speak to Ed.' I went to Stettinius and he threw up his hands and said that after the meeting on which there was substantial agreement on many matters, he had reported to Roosevelt as he usually did and had started by saying, 'Mr. President, it was a marvelous meeting. We reached general agreement.'

At that moment Bohlen brought Stalin in for a personal call on Roosevelt. Not a negotiating call, really just a courtesy call. Roosevelt in his expansive way said, 'Marshall Stalin, I have just been getting a report from my Secretary of State on the morning meeting and he told me there was agreement on everything.' Stettinius started to grab at Roosevelt's sleeve, but Stalin came back quickly 'and the two republics too?' And Roosevelt said, 'Yes.

Once the error was made, Roosevelt thought about later saying to Stalin that it was a mistake but decided against it. He understood that Stalin was seeking a balance in what was heavily a Western organization. He did at one point ask Stalin if Hawaii and Alaska could be admitted as members and Stalin said 'Sure,' but that would have been impossible under the U.S. Constitution. In the end, it was generally agreed that the Ukraine and Byelorussia could come to San Francisco and once there they would be accepted as voting members. The other agreement on representation that was reached at Yalta was that Poland would be represented by a joint delegation made up of government members in exile in both London and Moscow.

Trusteeship was another contentious issue at Yalta, but in this case, Churchill was the one who bristled. At one of the plenary sessions, Stettinius read out the proposal for a trusteeship council. Churchill who had apparently not be briefed beforehand was completely caught off guard and literally 'blew up.' Eden had not had time to clear it with Churchill before Yalta. Churchill shouted that he had not been elected the King's first minister ìto preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.' Roosevelt who was presiding had to call for a recess. Churchill was simply fuming. Hiss was asked to write down in plain language what trusteeship stood for. So, in long hand he wrote, 'the territories in trusteeship shall be territories mandated under the League, territories detached from the Axis powers and such other territories as any member may wish to place in trusteeship.' When Churchill read it, he said that it was in that case, 'all right.' So, the crisis passed. Of course, the Americans were well aware that after the war, with the weakened condition of both France and the United Kingdom, their colonies might in fact fall under the Trusteeship Council. The Soviets were supportive of the trusteeship idea and held a very anti-colonialist position, which to some was pure hypocrisy.

The other issue which seemed to have been resolved at Yalta was the veto and the competency of the General Assembly. Stalin finally agreed to allow the General Assembly to deal with whatever issues that arose in the international arena, including economic and social subjects. They accepted that the Council would be reserved for security issues and would be the central mandatory body on security affairs. Stalin also agreed that the veto could be limited to substantive issues. That agreement was later challenged by his foreign minister Molotov at San Francisco.

The meeting at Yalta was generally congenial and it was felt by Alger Hiss that Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt believed that they had a cooperative arrangement and genuine agreement on the principles of the new organization. That spirit had begun well before Yalta at Dumbarton Oaks where Stettinius, Gromyko, and Cadogan had cultivated a cooperative atmosphere.

The_Neon_Cowboy

San Francisco

The Conference at San Francisco was to finalize the structure and language of the Charter for the new organization now to be called the United Nations. While the atmosphere was enthusiastic as the war in Europe was drawing to a close, there were still a number of unresolved issues. Many of the delegates had arrived by train, crossing the vast plains and winding through the high mountains of the western United States before arriving in the 'City by the Bay' in early spring 1945. They were impressed by the massive size of this country which in contrast to Europe had not been touched by the devastating destruction of the war. President Roosevelt who had been the energy behind the creation of the UN would not make it to San Francisco. He died of a massive cerebral hemorrhage on April 12 only days before the Conference opened on April 25, 1945. He was succeeded by his Vice President Harry Truman.

Immediately, the issue of membership exploded. The Latin American countries had met in Mexico at Chapultepec a few weeks before San Francisco to discuss the draft Charter. They insisted that Argentina be accepted for original membership at the Conference. Assistant Secretary for Latin American Affairs in the U.S. State Department, Nelson Rockefeller, was at the Mexico meeting and supported the Latin American position on Argentina. The Latin Americans wanted 'universal membership,' meaning that all countries would be eligible for membership. Taking most of the delegations by surprise, including the Americans, Argentina was proposed for membership in the opening sessions at San Francisco. Foreign Minister Molotov, leading the Soviet delegation, was furious that the Yalta agreement had been ignored. But the Latin Americans had 21 votes at the Conference and refused to accept the membership of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. The U.S. position taken by Truman was that while they had agreed to admit the two republics as members that did not necessarily mean that they could become original members and participate in the Conference.

The issue of the three candidates was sent to committee. Molotov tried unsuccessfully to have the Argentine issue removed from the agenda altogether. As a gesture of good will, the Latin Americans agreed to vote in favor of the two republics and the motion was passed unanimously. But Molotov still refused to equate this with an acceptance of Argentina, calling the Argentine government fascist and throwing himself into a tirade which was captured by the press covering the Conference. Senator Vandenberg thought that the entire episode had 'done more in four days to solidify Pan America against Russia than anything that ever happened.' Molotov, apparently in retaliation on the Argentine issue and because Poland was still not represented, began to object to limitations on the veto and the broad competence of the General Assembly which had been resolved at Yalta. Truman had to resort to requesting Harry Hopkins, former special advisor to President Roosevelt who was traveling in Germany at the time, to go to Moscow to seek an audience with Stalin to clear things up. Alexei Roschin who was among the Soviet delegation in San Francisco says that Stalin accepted the AmericanÃ*s presentation of the matter and informed Molotov to adhere to the decisions taken at Yalta on the veto and the General Assembly. Argentina was accepted as a member and the Conference proceeded. Molotov eventually left San Francisco, and to everyoneÃ*s relief, Ambassador Gromyko took up the leadership of the Soviet delegation. The decision was taken that members of the UN would not have trusteeship status.

Ambassador Garcia Robles of Mexico who took part in the Chapultepec Conference and was also in the Mexican delegation at San Francisco recalls that the Latin Americans also emphasized the importance of enhancing and making more specific the powers of the General Assembly and delineating the relationship between the UN and regional organizations, reserving the right to resolve a local issue regionally before handing it over to the international body. Many of these considerations were taken up in San Francisco and the appropriate language was entered into the Charter. Importantly, it was eventually agreed that the General Assembly would not only be able to address economic, social, and security issues, but that it would have power over the budget.

The issue of trusteeship was resolved at the Conference, but again not without controversy. Majid Khadduri, a member of the Iraqi delegation, recalls that the Arab countries were concerned about the status of Syria and Lebanon which had been invited to participate in San Francisco. Both countries had been mandates of France before the war. But because France had been occupied by the Nazis, it was not able to function as a mandatory power during the war years and Syria and Lebanon had been left on their own. They, therefore, considered themselves independent. The Arab delegations wanted to make sure that countries that had been invited to become members of the United Nations would not fall into the category of trusteeship, throwing Syria and Lebanon back under French control. Because the League rules had not yet been rescinded, technically France was still the mandatory power over Syria and Lebanon. In response to the Arab proposal, France tried to force Syria to sign a treaty delineated certain demands that would maintain some French control. Syria refused and during the San Francisco Conference in May, France began bombing Damascus. The U.S. and Britain protested the bombing and insisted that the French withdraw, highlighting that the world was trying to establish peaceful relations and ought not to resort to war tactics. When the French withdrew, the Syrians claimed their independence and refused to negotiate any further with the French.

On the issue of the veto, Khadduri states that the Arab countries were essentially pro-Western and accepted the great powers' need for a veto in the Security Council. The veto probably produced the most disagreement in San Francisco and according to one of the American staff members at the Conference, Lawrence Finkelstein, "came very close to wrecking the Conference." The smaller countries were generally opposed to the veto but the major powers, now joined by France which had been liberated at the end of the war, presented a unified front. The Latin Americans were particularly resistant to the idea. The smaller powers 'resented the notion of the veto to begin with and knew that they were going to have to swallow it because there would be no Charter without it and they couldn't afford not to have the Charter.' In the final vote on the veto, 33 nations supported it, two (Cuba and Colombia) voted against it, and 15 countries chose to abstain.

In San Francisco, the role of Secretary-General of the UN was considered primarily an administrative position. Ruth Russell's summary of the discussions on the election of the chief administrator demonstrate that a number of options were considered. It was suggested that the General Assembly elect the Secretary-General on its own. Others proposed that the Security Council could nominate three candidates from which the General Assembly could select one. It was also discussed whether or not the deputy secretaries general ought to be elected by the Assembly, as well. It was settled that the General Assembly would elect the Secretary-General upon the nomination of the Security Council. The Soviet delegate argued that the nomination of the Secretary-General was not a procedural matter and therefore was subject to the veto. The British and French supported that point and the U.S. highlighted that the major powers had to have confidence in the chief administrator and therefore had to have some control over the selection. The U.S. also pointed out that the General Assembly had the power to reject an unsatisfactory candidate. The position was generally considered as fulfilling a bureaucratic function. Nevertheless, the Secretary-General was given the power under Article 99 of the Charter to bring an issue to the attention of the Security Council, thus adding a political competence to the office. Today, the symbolic nature of the office as global leader has evolved well beyond the original intent.

The_Neon_Cowboy

The United Nations is Born:

The Charter of the United Nations was signed by 50 members at San Francisco with a spot reserved for Poland as the 51st original member for signature at a later date. It had been hoped that Poland would be able to participate in San Francisco but the 'Provisional Government of National Unity' was not formed until just before the signing, not providing suffcient time to arrive at the Conference for the ceremony. Alger Hiss describes the euphoria as the final draft was signed. He explains that Truman placed tremendous importance on it, so much so that the original document was given its own parachute on the flight back to Washington even though Alger Hiss, who was carrying it, had to travel without one. On July 28, 1945, the United States Senate approved the Charter by a vote of 89 to 2. The bipartisan participation by the Senate throughout the process proved to be a very successful strategy. On October 24th, 1945, twenty-nine countries had signed and ratified the Charter affirming a majority of the original fifty-one signatories. On that day, the United Nations was officially constituted and by December 27th, all the original members had ratified. While there had been inklings of the Cold War during the negotiating process, there was still a feeling of hope that this new international cooperation could be sustained. Enthusiasm still filled the hall at the first opening session of the United Nations in London on January 10, 1946.

An Evolutionary Process?

At the onset of this article it was claimed that the United Nations is part of an evolving process toward greater international organization. If that is true, then the UN will need to continue to evolve and change as the political and security environment changes around it. If it does not, it may be pushed aside by more relevant institutions or it may cease to exist like the Concert and the League before it. An examination of the issues of it birth facilitate an understanding of how it may or may not need to change. Perhaps the concurrence of the major powers is needed to solidify enforcement and maintain a credible deterrence. But by what criteria do we measure which are the major powers of a given era? If we give them this power, how can we be sure they will share the same sense of global responsibility and act in concert? Through the pressures of a growing democratic civil society the UN is being forced to become more accountable for its actions as are the member states which drive the decisions and policies. We cannot afford to let the UN ossify. It would be very painful to start all over and we don't want to wait for another world war to force an evolutionary change.

bluelight

You post a lot of text that im not ´gonna read.Im on a 56 and i dont spend money on something i know is wrong.


Simple logic says....in order to start an organisation as the UN there has to be more than one member.


Ok unless Usa was the only member of the UN at the beginning...which it wasnt ......then logically the organisation was started by those countries that first signed to the conditions of the UN.NOT by Usa by themselves.

The UN is NOT an american organisation to fullfill American needs.

Usa was one of those that PROPOSED to start the organisation..or more right....REMAKE the organisation called"League of nations"....that ALREADY EXISTED...but that is not the same thing as starting it.



Qoute from your text

"The Charter of the United Nations was signed by 50 members at San Francisco with a spot reserved for Poland as the 51st original member for signature at a later date"



And Bluelight sums it up..

Ok as your text actually says........these 50 nations....were those that started the current form of UN.Not Usa.



Bluelight

Falstaff

if anyone is interested..http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ca/2839739.stm

bluelight

Nobody likes the veto system but without it none of the major powers would ever had signed to be part of the UN.

Now...if the system of veto is so bad right now because of that the threat of using it for once has touched you then i dont know..............


You have used it yourself on a large number of occasions and you will continue to use is as soon as you dislike a proposal.

Personally i prefer this than that the UN is totally sidestepped and that you start ruling everything on your own.

That way the issues at least get to land on the table and get discussed internationally.

Bluelight

Falstaff

More countries are taking an interest in joining the U.N. ? Whats up with that?

Dmac43

In reading these posts, I believe that the point here is that the UN needs to be more democratic...
The veto power should go to a majority vote, not just "cancelling" any amendment, or charter by one country who doesn't like it (even the US)

Likewise, all member countries of the UN should have the same voting powers. Not just the small group who have all of the veto power right now. That would make the UN actually "United"

As it stands now the UN appears to be a very "spiteFul" group of nations (Yes the US included), who look out for their own interests rather than the good of all nations (Which is what they were designed to do), much like the 2 party system of government in the US has become government for the party rather than government for the people...

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I was under the impression that the UN exists to help police the world, and to stop atrocities and keep them from happening. With the current system by which they exist, how can they be effective? The countries in which many of the atrocities are occuring don't have the same power in the UN as the small group which has the veto power.

I guess my point is that for the UN to be truly successful they must give all member countries equal voice, and equal voting power, then go with what the majority decides.

bluelight

I agree with the essence in what you say Dmac ......it should be like that..or similar but that would mean that Usa...China...Russia...France....would have to accept decisions that are against what the want sometimes...and that is not gonna happen so we have to take what is next best.......


Which is.......

To voluntary stick to the rules set out by the UN and at least do as good as is possible out of that.

Bluelight